Buckingham Palace is reportedly trembling in the wake of a bombshell revelation that has ripped open one of the most painful chapters in modern royal history. Nearly three decades after the tragic death of Princess Diana in a Paris tunnel, the specter of her driver, Henri Paul—long vilified and buried alongside her—has returned to haunt the Windsors. In a stunning development, a close confidant of Paul, speaking publicly for the first time, has shattered the solemn oath of silence that has bound survivors and insiders since 1997. Claiming to reveal “what really happened that day in Paris,” this explosive testimony alleges a web of cover-ups, intelligence intrigue, and overlooked evidence that could upend the official narrative of the crash. As whispers echo through the palace corridors, courtiers are said to be in disarray, fearing this could reignite global conspiracy theories and tarnish the monarchy’s fragile post-Charles stability. Has the truth about Diana’s final moments finally clawed its way to the surface? Or is this just another cruel twist in a saga that refuses to die?

The announcement came like a thunderbolt on October 12, 2025, during a fringe hearing at London’s High Court, part of an ongoing review into unresolved aspects of the 2008 inquest into Diana’s death. Claude Garrec, a lifelong friend and former colleague of Henri Paul at the Ritz Hotel in Paris, took the stand in a closed-session testimony that leaked almost immediately to tabloids like The Sun and Daily Mail. Garrec, now 72 and a retired hotel security consultant, had vowed never to speak out, honoring what he called “Henri’s unspoken oath” to protect the reputations of those involved. But with his own health failing, Garrec declared, “After 28 years, the weight is too much. Henri cannot defend himself from the grave, but I can.”

Henri Paul, the 41-year-old deputy head of security at the Ritz, was the man behind the wheel of the Mercedes S280 that fateful night of August 31, 1997. Accompanying Diana, her partner Dodi Fayed, and bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones, Paul had been hastily recruited to evade a swarm of paparazzi after a romantic dinner at the hotel owned by Dodi’s father, Mohamed al-Fayed. The car hurtled into the Pont de l’Alma tunnel at over 65 mph, clipping a mysterious white Fiat Uno before slamming into pillar 13. Diana, Dodi, and Paul perished; Rees-Jones, the sole survivor, suffered severe injuries but remembers little. Official inquiries—France’s 1999 judicial probe and Britain’s exhaustive Operation Paget (2004-2006)—concluded the crash resulted from Paul’s gross negligence: he was three times over the French alcohol limit, traces of antidepressants and an antipsychotic in his system, and speeding recklessly to shake pursuing photographers. The 2008 coroner’s inquest delivered a verdict of “unlawful killing” due to the combined recklessness of Paul and the paparazzi, a finding that cost £12.5 million and quelled most public outrage—at least temporarily.

Garrec’s testimony, however, paints a far more sinister picture, alleging Paul was “set up” as the fall guy in a meticulously orchestrated hit. Drawing from private conversations with Paul in the weeks before the crash—allegedly recorded in a now-lost diary—Garrec claims Paul was no drunkard but a reluctant informant for French intelligence (DST, now DGSI). “Henri told me they pressured him for info on high-profile guests, like Diana,” Garrec stated, echoing 2007 inquest claims that Paul liaised with secret services to monitor VIPs at the Ritz. On the night in question, Paul supposedly confided fears of being “watched too closely,” hinting at surveillance beyond the paparazzi frenzy. Garrec further alleges the blood samples tested post-mortem were “switched”—a conspiracy staple dismissed by Operation Paget but revived here with purported lab discrepancies from a 1998 French forensic audit that “vanished” from records.

Most shockingly, Garrec reveals Paul’s “final warning” hours before the crash: a cryptic phone call to a mutual friend, saying, “If something happens tonight, it won’t be the wine—they’ll make it look that way.” He claims Paul was sober upon leaving the Ritz bar (where he appeared in CCTV footage mingling casually), and that the Mercedes—a known “wreck” previously scrapped after a collision—was sabotaged with faulty brakes, supplied deliberately by al-Fayed’s fleet at Paul’s insistence from intelligence handlers. “Henri was clean, sharp as ever,” Garrec insisted. “He’d never risk Diana’s life. This was about silencing her—her landmine campaign, her AIDS work, her threats to expose the royals’ secrets.” Diana, weeks after her explosive Panorama interview blasting the royal family, had reportedly told friends she feared for her safety, fueling enduring theories of MI6 involvement ordered by Prince Philip.

The palace’s reaction has been one of barely contained panic. Insiders, speaking anonymously to The Times, describe emergency meetings at Buckingham Palace on October 13, where King Charles—still recovering from cancer treatment—convened with Prince William and senior courtiers. “It’s like 1997 all over again,” one source lamented. “The King is devastated; this dredges up wounds we thought healed.” William, who has championed his mother’s legacy through the Diana Award charity, is said to be “furious” at the timing, coinciding with heightened scrutiny over Catherine’s recent regency elevation. Queen Camilla, long a lightning rod for Diana-related ire, has reportedly retreated to Ray Mill, her Wiltshire bolthole, amid online vitriol accusing her of past complicity. Social media erupted, with #DianaTruthNow trending worldwide, amassing 8.7 million posts in 48 hours—many drawing parallels to recent royal scandals like Prince Andrew’s Epstein ties.

Public sentiment, already simmering on the 28th anniversary marked by global vigils in August, has boiled over. In Paris, flowers piled anew at the Flame of Liberty memorial above the tunnel, while London’s Kensington Palace gates saw spontaneous protests demanding a full reinvestigation. A YouGov poll conducted October 14-15 reveals 62% of Britons now doubt the official verdict, up from 41% in 2023, with younger respondents (18-34) at 78% believing in foul play. Conspiracy theorists, from QAnon fringes to al-Fayed loyalists, seized the moment: Mohamed al-Fayed’s estate, via spokesperson, hailed Garrec as “vindicated,” renewing calls for MI6 files declassification. Even forensic pathologist Dr. Richard Shepherd, who examined Diana’s body for the inquest, weighed in on BBC Radio 4, reiterating that “one click of a seatbelt could have saved her,” but conceding “lingering questions about Paul’s impairment deserve fresh eyes.”

Skeptics, however, urge caution. Rees-Jones, in a rare statement via his lawyers, dismissed Garrec’s claims as “painful fiction,” insisting Paul’s intoxication was irrefutable from multiple autopsies. Operation Paget’s lead, Lord Stevens, called the testimony “recycled nonsense” in a Telegraph op-ed, pointing to 175 witnesses and 20,000 documents that debunked intelligence plots. French authorities, probing Garrec’s diary claims, labeled it a “publicity stunt,” noting Paul’s history of heavy drinking documented by colleagues. Yet, the white Fiat Uno—driven by an unidentified man who fled the scene—remains the crash’s enduring enigma, with 2025 forensic reanalysis (prompted by unseen crash photos released in March) suggesting paint transfer inconsistencies that “could indicate tampering.”

For the Windsors, the stakes are existential. Diana’s death fractured public trust, forcing Queen Elizabeth II into uncharted emotional territory with her unprecedented TV address. Today, amid republican surges in Australia and Canada, this revelation threatens to erode the “unity” King Charles so desperately promotes. William and Harry’s joint tribute on the 25th anniversary vowed to “honor Mummy’s legacy,” but private rifts—exacerbated by Harry’s memoir Spare—could widen if palace stonewalling is perceived as complicity. Insiders whisper of a preemptive royal statement, perhaps a documentary revisiting the inquest, to reclaim the narrative.

As Garrec’s words reverberate—”Henri died protecting the truth”—the palace trembles not just from ghosts of the past, but fears for its future. Diana, the “People’s Princess,” always warned she was “fighting a losing battle” against the establishment. If Garrec is right, that battle may have ended in a tunnel, but it’s far from over. The oath is broken; now, the reckoning begins. Will the Crown survive another Diana storm, or will this shatter it irreparably?